Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian erotic poetry


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. --Core desat  05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Australian erotic poetry

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. An essay based on personal opinion and original research. Spends most of its time arguing that there hardly is any Australian erotic poetry, which would suggest that we don't need an article on the topic.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ChristopherJones 04:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is largely original research. Further, it actually makes a strong case why this isn't notable as a topic. I quote verbatim: "Erotic poetry is so under repesented in Australian poetry anthologies that it could be said to be a non existent poetic form in Australia. The Penguin Book of Modern Verse, 1961 and the more recent The Penguin Book of Modern Australian Poetry (1991) contain no examples of erotic poetry. The National library of Australia until quite recently (2006) had no category called "erotic poetry Australian" Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice), are the only two poets listed under the subject category "erotic poetry- Australian" in the National Library of Australia catalogue." Capitalistroadster 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 04:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Becuase there is very little Australian erotic poetry it is important to have an article on this subject. This argument is spurious it is like saying in the late 1700s that because there is little romantic poetry ie Wordsworth then Wikipedia should not have an article called romanitic poetry. This sort of argument will just hinder the presentation of new ideas genres and themes on Wikipedia and thus make it not up to date and at the cutting edge of new developments. This sort of argument could be applied to the net itself which is changeing every day and thus hinder Wikipedia fropm giveing up with current trends. The deletion of Australian erotic poetry will stop Wikipdedia from being at the forefront of what is happening in Australian poetry. Deleting this article would be like deleting an article on post modern Australian poetry or hyperlink Australian poetry -all underrepresented in Australia- and thus not giving a broad coverage of the current trends in Australian poetry. This article should not be deleted as it give the current trend and direction in Australian poetry. Just because some topic is new and novel and not at the moment have many represenatives is no reason why an article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. WP:OR, WP:N. And since when was Wikipedia supposed to be on the cutting edge of anything? Cutting-edge stuff is for research journals, not encyclopedias. Bi 04:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unrelated comment Just a note for future ref, WP:OR and WP:V have been superseded by WP:ATT, but there is no change to the underlying policy, just more what it's called and the way it's grouped. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * weak keep I think it can be sourced, and I think the topic is N. I wish the author had done a better job of it in the first place.DGG 05:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment dont make sence. Articles on science,technology ie nanotechnology, Quantum mechanics,gravity state the current situation ie at the cutting edge of these areas. So why cant an article on Australian erotic poetry state the current trends in the area just like those in science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
 * Indeed, just compare the number of publications talking about nanotechnology to the number of publications talking about Australian erotic poetry! Bi 05:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unintelligible bordering on patent nonsense, seems to actually argue against the topic's notability. Krimpet 05:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Contradictory? Article questions its own notability. As it stands, the article is pretty much original research and has no reliable sources.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, and probably not notable either. Maxamegalon2000 06:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but add sources - article can be formed better. Just needs work. Interesting topic that seems moderately notable. Guroadrunner 07:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATT, unless it can be rewritten. It would be more productive to rewrite them as two articles for the poets in question (Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice)) which can then be appropriately referenced/filled out as Australian poets, and then group them under erotic poetry. It seems ultimately that categorisation, rather than a section article, would be more useful here. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:ATT, unless it can be rewritten. It would be more productive to rewrite them as two articles for the poets in question (Colin Leslie Dean and Collins, T. M. (Timothy Maurice)) which can then be appropriately referenced/filled out as Australian poets, and then group them under erotic poetry. It seems ultimately that categorisation, rather than a section article, would be more useful here. Orderinchaos78 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

more sources and references have been added

The suggestion for two articles makes no sense. There seems to be no good reason why there cant be an Australian erotic poetry article just as there would be no good reason why there cannot be  a modern or post-modern poetry article. Why categorise the poets under Australian poets then sub categorise them under erotic poetry -makes no sense- why not just put the poets in an article dealing with Australian erotic poetry-there seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry

Geee why does being a strange article mean it has to be deleted - this must be a purely subjective valuation. Others say the article is interesting. Tthere seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry
 * Delete per nom. Quite a strange article altogether. StuartDouglas 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear - by strange, I intended to suggest almost unreadably badly written and NN by the writer's own definition. StuartDouglas 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - blatant essay, obvious original research, virtually no reliable sources cited. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GEEE you say no reliable sources yet one of my sources is straight out of the Wikipedia database- All this is getting a bit out of hand people are just pulling things out of the air to justify deleting the article It seems if someone gives a negitive valuation every one else just follows suit.I have come to the conclusion that the deletion of the article has little to do with its content but rather some other unspoken issue with the article. I draw this conclusion from viewing the range of contradictory comments: some say the article is nonsense other say it is interesting some say it is not notable other say it is moderatly notable some say it canot be sourced other say it can be sourced some say it should be rewritten other say it needs just a bit of work. All these contradictory reasons indicate to me that a lot of subjective feelings are going into the reasons for its deletion. An article cannot generate such a wide variety of opinions if it was fundamentaly flawed. A fundamentaly flawed article would have more consensus regarding reasons. Every time I answer an argument the gaol posts are moved. This indicates that people have it in their minds-for what ever reasons-that this article should be deleted and as such will just go on producing arguments no mater what counter arguments is presented-the goal posts will always be moved to accomadate their feelings about the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
 * Gamahucher, regardless of any other reasons, your article consists of your own personal analysis of the subject matter (or is written in a manner that blatantly gives that impression). That there may be other flaws does not obscure the fact that it's *blatantly* original research and inappropriate for that reason alone. Fourohfour 20:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; blatantly crosses the line separating an encyclopedia article from a dissertation/essay/analysis. In other words, it's original research and doesn't belong here, regardless of how good or bad it is. Fourohfour 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to colin leslie dean's erotic poetry that can be downloaded free. If this does not satify you i dont know what will-if the link is deleted after expecially asking for some examples of erotic poetry then I just throw up my hands- since it would then seem there are unspoked issue around the article topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) There is nothing wrong with creating entries that adds to the knowledge pool even if they happen to be about one person-there is no universal law saying a person canot be multitalented. You obvious obsession in hunting down such minute detail about what entries have been placed speacks volumes about what may be just personal bias and hostilty or some other unsavory human disposition. A commentator asked for some erotic poetry erxamples so i give a link and all you can do is find some problem with it GEEE have you some big problem with the erotic
 * Comment- I think the issue should not be in the style it is written, but the notability and potential of the article. An article written like an essay about a notable subject should not be deleted, it should be corrected. This is not to say that the article is notable, or to assert any other opinion other than you should make sure you are deleting it for the right reason. Original research also- if it's notable, don't delete it, fill it with secondary research. Sean MD80 talk 00:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article on erotic poetry yet, or even a separate article on Australian poetry -- just a section in Australian literature. Are you saying we should keep an article that's completely unacceptable from start to finish, just as a sort of work order for someone else to create something encyclopedic about this particular niche subject?  I don't find that persuasive, to put it mildly.  This isn't just an article that needs a quick copyedit, or some unencylopedic rhetoric trimmed away; it has deep WP:NPOV and WP:NOR problems and would need to be completely researched and rewritten from scratch.  If other editors do that, they will be using up time that could be better spent on more urgently-needed subjects; if they don't, it will remain bad indefinitely and be of little or no help to the person who -- perhaps years from now -- undertakes to write an encyclopedic article on this topic.
 * In any case, the issue is moot as long as no one has presented non-trivial secondary sources discussing Australian erotic poetry.  &mdash;Cel ithemis  01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No I am not saying you should try improve a completely unacceptable article into something better- if that is what everybody deems it. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't deleting this soley on the way it was written, because I had seen several weak keeps and one strong keep saying it was notable. I never suggested anything about its notability in my comment. Sean MD80 talk 01:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the topic itself is fine, assuming of course an Australian tradition of erotic poetry can be found and sourced. So by the theory of AfD, this should be a cleanup and keep. But it's not clear that any of the actual current content can be saved. What I'd really like to vote is delete for now, but someone should write a good article on the topic. --Trovatore 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup. I have added a couple of sources and cleaned up some of the language.  It still needs massive cleanup for NPOV and WP:ATT and rewriting, but I don't think that we should delete it just because we don't have an Australian Poetry or an erotic poetry article.  Someone should write those ones, too. —Carolfrog 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Still seems like a Delete to me - the new version is much better written and presented but the key problem - the almost total absence of any actual erotic Australian poetry (3 headings of four int he enw article have no content) - means that it still is forced into essay format and original research (e.g. "In the main, erotic poetry in Australia is a form of heresy"). StuartDouglas 09:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically an original research essay. Not encyclopædic.  Lankiveil 11:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment The link that User:Gamahucher added goes to the website of Gamahucher Press, which exclusively publishes the works of Colin Leslie Dean. In the article as Gamahucher originally wrote it, Dean was the poet discussed most heavily.  In fact, User:Gamahucher's entire edit history seems geared toward promoting this writer and his books; he has also added links to the articles on mathematics and dreamtime, and created new articles on Meaninglessness and Anti-poetry that are largely about Dean.  There appears to be a conflict of interest here.  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually the anti-poetry page is much the same as the Erotic Poetry page - empty headings, an advert for Mr Dean's work and some original research to bulk it out. I've added an OR tag to the page to try and generate some discussion and discover if there is more to anti-poetry than Mr Deans. StuartDouglas 13:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem here isn't with the fact that it's one person, it's that you are basically using Wikipedia to promote someone the success of whom you have an apparent vasted interest in. Therefore you have an obvious Conflict of Interest as covered by conflict of interest as well as the other problems with the article. You seem to think that this all some personal bias on people's part, but that is not the case StuartDouglas 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous It like saying that because someone puts entries about Sir Richard Francis Burton in Wikipedia in such entries as anthroplogy poetry india arabian nights etc he has a vested interet in pushing him. This is all getting a bit silly and really speacks volumes about unspoken issues


 * Comment No, the problem isn't the gentleman being in several places, it's that you personally appear to publish Mr Deans; that he doesn't appear to be notable and that you have created multiple articles whose primary purpose is to link to your own site and which serve almost entirely to promote Mr Deans. If someone writes articles which mention Sir Richard Francis Burton in several places, that's fine - he is notable, he's a historical figure and no-one can be said to have a conflict of interest in writing about him.  You seem to be using Wikipedia as a means of promoting or advertising someone you personally publish - and that's not what Wikipedia is for.  StuartDouglas 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I donot publish mr dean I publish topics and themes he has contributed to. This article is not about mr dean it is about erotic poetry which he has contributed to. If mr dean happens to be multitalented why does that preculded the areas he has contributed to from excluision from WikipediaMr dean did not invent Australian erotic poetry -that was created by the National Library of Australia. Are you saying that because he is not a world famous person he cannot appear on Wikipedia. ARE YOU SAYING ONLY WORLD FAMOUS PEOPLE CAN APPEAR ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you saying that mr dean canot have any entries about areas he contributes to I think that is patently ridiculous We have moved from not notable to original research to not enough sources to no examples of erotic poetry to now conflict of interest. It seem you all just jump on the next  badwaggon that comes along. What next will it be perhaps becuase the the article was written with my left foot that makes it illegitment. We have moved from attacking the article to now character assinating the author-where will this all end really getting silly and speacks volumes for unspoken issues. All this new bandwaggon of cohorts simpply because I was asked for some examples of erotic poetry. Get real you asked for it I did not give it till asked -so if I was pushing dean why wait to be asked and not just give the link initialy

If I wrote articles about Sir Richard Francis Burton and owned a bookshop that sold his book would that be vested interet and exclude me from writing such articles. Are you saying bookshop owners canot wriite articles which therir books deal will Get real. If you did not want examples of erotic poetry you should have not askedNo matter if I put a small quote from mr dean all this conflict of interest would still arise. I am afriad that you have set in your mind like some world leaders a course of action and no matter how your arguments are refuted you just keep moving the goal post each time. As I say your obsession with hunting mr dean on google really speacks volumes for an obsessive mind with untoward dispositions
 * Comment Please believe me that no-one here is attacking any authors, but as you rightly say the problems with this article cover non-notability, original research, not attribution and conflict of interest amongst others. For those reasons alone, it should be deleted.  The article (and the others you have contributed to Wikipedia on Meaninglessness and Anti-poetry, plus contributions to Mathematics and Australian literature) are all without exception about Mr Deans and feature links to your own website which apparently publishes Mr Deans.  A Google search for Colin Leslie Dean has virtually no hits which aren't either a link to your own website or links to web fora which feature new members praising Mr Dean, only to be shot down imemdiately by more established forum members for spamming and self-promotion.  And while this is meant to be a calm discussion and not an argument, might I suggest that the reason you did not initially feature your web address was because on Australian Literature you were immediately edited for link spamming? StuartDouglas 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, OK. Here's a simple question which, leaving out the question of COI/OR/ATT, should make things crystal clear.  Can you point to a set of verifiable, secondary sources (i.e. not ones which simply link to your website) which demonstrate that Mr Dean is in any way a notable poet and not, to quote a reply to one mysterious web forum post claiming Mr Dean was great, "some sort of self-published no-hoper who has no place in a forum for published poetry" []. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuartDouglas (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

go to the Auslit Resourse for Australian Literature website http://www.austlit.edu.au/ and type in colin leslie dean to see that he is a notable Australian erotic poet by being listed- you may need to subscribe or your library may give you access. And as I Say if you where around in 1790 you would delete an article on romantic poetry featureing Wordsworth- notablity is no criteria for value just as being disparaged is no criteri for inablity- I recall Galileo was disparged in his time to IMr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress

you harp on about notablity but i can see your moputh drop when you read this Mr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress. Once again you change the goal posts. You want notablity i gave it to you and you just ignore it-once again unspoked issues 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century is not a pay for vanity publication you saying that really indicates you cant handle mr deans notablity and must try and proove to yourself by any illusion it cant be that he is notable I suppose you are going to say Yale Havard and the library of congress only put books in catalogue based upon vanity domination-GET REAL-you trying to dispage mr dean is reaching the hights of the ridiculous
 * Comment Sorry, but notability is what matters here. And as I can't access the link you included, perhaps you could cut and paste the relevant section.  To stress again, no-one is out to get you or Mr Dean, but as things stand your contributions to Wikipedia appear to be entirely an attempt to gain publicity for a non-notable and self-published poet with no critical review. As for the 2000 Oustanding Scholars book, that seems to be a pay for inclusion scam, the site for which revolevsa roudn askign people to nominate as many people as they want for inclusion.  Anyway, I;ve said more than enough - the AfD will end up in consensus I suspect StuartDouglas 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This AFD has turned into a bloodbath. The points that have been stated above are:
 * There is questions as to whether the two named poets are notable. I don't doubt they probably are, but Wikipedia is quite strong on *asserting* notability - i.e. you have to say in the article how the individual is notable. Cambridge's book as above may well be enough to do this so long as someone else is willing to vouch for this. I had taken this on face value, but it turns out it is simply a publisher called International Biographical Centre based in the town of Cambridge, England. The website is here. The publication is not in any state, local or university library in Western Australia and is not listed on the NLA catalogue. (Interestingly, Colin Leslie Dean's work can be found in most of the above)
 * The article this AfD is about, Australian erotic poetry, will probably be deleted per our attribution policy, which expressly states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments." This article reads like an essay, and basically is one.

if you want library holdings as a giude to status As Isaid mr dean is in "Dictionary of international biography" the National Library of Australia has 3 entries and there are 227 entries ib library around australia. He is also in 2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century and this is meantioned at the National Library of Australia. He is in international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia which is in the National Library of Australia. He is also in Whos who in the 21st century the National Library of Australia has and there are 16 entries for libraries in Australia

you all talk about original research not wanted but Wikipedias entry for International Biographical Centre is completly original research even with a long list of items foun on a google search. If it is good for one why not others-there is a bit of biased selection going on here

you say surprisingly mr dean is in a number of Australian libraries if you had of checked the sourse i give in the article you would have seen that-you all say I dont  give sources, I do but you all  dont even bother to look at them


 * Some editors have expressed a concern that there is a

conflict of interest as the name of the author (and main "keep" proponent on this AfD) is the same as the press which publishes one of the poets in question, and may thereby have a vested interest in promoting the work. I don't know if this is the case or not.
 * At all times it should be remembered this is an encyclopaedia and not a web host or publisher. As I suggested some time back in the debate, perhaps the solution is to create a category "Australian erotic poetry" and create two articles, one for each of these poets, and put them in the category. Any reliable independent sources (eg ADB if he has a listing there) could be used to construct a biography of the guy. Orderinchaos78 16:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

you want notablity mr dean is also in these books from cambridge "2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century", "Dictionary of international biography 32ed edition", "Whos who in the 21st century first edition" "international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia fourth edition, to name a few- any one care to check feel free YOU ALL ASKED FOR NOTABLITY AND VERIFIABLITY  eat your words about an amatuer no-hoper never trust wannabes on the net forums they have not the ability to see ablity- particularly when it is not mainstream pulp
 * Comment Cambridge, aka the International Biographical Centre has its own article on Wikipedia, under Confidence Tricks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Biographical_Centre See also the section of this page titled  Nerd Scam [] This is of course getting wildly off topic, but I thought it worth pointing out in the face of being told to 'eat my words'  StuartDouglas 16:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

nevertheless as your link points out entry is based on merit and not a pay for entry-even if nominated you must have merit to be included - and they are not a vanity press  even if entrants pay for bigger spreads they must have merit to be included -eat your words. As i say there is a lot of effort to disparage mr dean that borders on psychological obsession
 * Comment Eh, there's no need for this constant aggression - civility costs nothing and nothing said here is personal. Also, no - the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay, before making it clear that it is a vanity press where paid, larger entries are bulked out with worthless self-nominated entries.  Any actual merit on the part of those included is wholly irrelevant and secondary to the fact that they have paid to get in.

One final point - I see that amongst your edits to Wikipedia is one where you edited an article on a CD of music called Erotic Poetry to include a copy and pasted section from this article [], all about Mr Dean. Can you really deny that you are Mr Dean? Or that his article and every other edit you have made is designed to promote yourself? StuartDouglas 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you link specificaly says merit is required and there is no payment for entry -only for wanting a bigger spread or wanting to an award. But the article states merit is required and that payment is not required for entry. you contradict yourself and show your agenda when you say "the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay" then say,"they have paid to get in" I am courious you asked for examples of erotic poetry has any one gone to the link and download any free books of erotic poetry - you asked for examples so how about commenting on some. YES I pasted to the erotic poetry becuase it is obvious that this article wil be deleted so just trying to get some information about Australian erotic poetry on Wikipedia StuartDouglas has obviously a bee in his bonnet as he has intiated discussions on two of my entries Anti-poetry and Meaninglessness. These articles are not about colin leslie dean, but about areas that he happens to have contributed to It is not my problem that colin leslie dean is at the cuting edge of new ideas and new trends. There was a time when the only entry under "relativity" would have been Einstien. So dont blame colin leslie dean or accuse me of promoting him if he is one of the only ones in certian important areas -like Wordsworth or Einstein where at one stage
 * Keep. Seems to pass WP:V. Could use some cleanup and wikification, so it should be tagged accordingly and followed up upon, but not deleted.  young  american  (ahoy hoy) 16:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is entirely original research, conflict of interest, non-reliable and non-notable, plus probably a vanity article to begin with. darkskyz 12:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica. So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE  articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources.
 * Delete. Original research, dubious and certainly unestablished notability.Sarcasticidealist 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.